So how 'bout those Mets?

[Esben Mose Hansen]

Yeh. Someone definately doesn't believe in "innocent until proven guilty", or "beyond a reasonable doubt". After all - hypothetically, it'd be more likely that the host or the person with the master password was doing any digital manipulation of game files.

If Norfleet was being framed, why would he agree on the numbers of the battle? I liked Norfleet as much as anyone, but I find the framing scenario very unlikely. I have to say that Norfleet's guilt is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. In that light, we must assume that Norfleet has probably cheated in more games, which brings the different flamewars into a different light.

[Cainehill]

If Norfleet was being framed, why would he agree on the numbers of the battle? I liked Norfleet as much as anyone, but I find the framing scenario very unlikely. I have to say that Norfleet's guilt is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. In that light, we must assume that Norfleet has probably cheated in more games, which brings the different flamewars into a different light.

Or that some of the people with an agenda against him went "beyond the pale". I certainly don't think you (as the host) had anything to do with it.

But something irks me, from a logical point of view. Supposedly Norfleet had _17_ dwarven hammers on turn 22 or 23. To me, that's nuts - maybe at turn 40, or 60, someone might have use for 17 hammers.

But at turn 23, it's conspicuously wasteful - you can't _use_ that many hammers, even if the cost of creating them was negligible. That's something fishy, to me.

It seems just as likely to me, that someone figured out how to cheat and used that to frame Norfleet in so hugely blatant and obvious a way that he could start calling out, in what was for him an oddly reasonable tone of voice, "Say, partner, can you explain what I think I see here?"

Knowing the forged evidence is so damning that the jury will already have decided to hang, no matter the explanation : "I don't know how those stolen cattle got into my pen. The 17 dwarven sheep in the bedroom? No sense even talking about them."

As I say - given the animosities involved, this seems as credible as someone going so far off the deep end as to actually forge 17 dwarven hammers while cheating. (If you're capable of cheating so massively on gems - _WHY_ do you need all the hammers?)

Another fishy thing, from another game : How does an artifact (the Holy Grail) simply disappear from the magic item stash, with a message saying "Suddenly the Chalice was not found in the laboratory anymore".

[archaeolept]

I don't think that possibility is very convincing caine, whatever the characters involved. Norfleet did not say, hey this isn't the game I was playing (as if he had been set up), but instead tried to put forth various bull**** explanations (such as about having used sorceresses for ravensfeast and getting 40 death gems from burninating provinces). And, frankly, I find Norfleet much more likely to have had the necessary skills for the job.

As to the chalice thing, that's just the message you get if someone wishes the artifact away from you. You can wish it back if you want

[johan osterman]

Or that some of the people with an agenda against him went "beyond the pale". I certainly don't think you (as the host) had anything to do with it.

But something irks me, from a logical point of view. Supposedly Norfleet had _17_ dwarven hammers on turn 22 or 23. To me, that's nuts - maybe at turn 40, or 60, someone might have use for 17 hammers.

But at turn 23, it's conspicuously wasteful - you can't _use_ that many hammers, even if the cost of creating them was negligible. That's something fishy, to me.

It seems just as likely to me, that someone figured out how to cheat and used that to frame Norfleet in so hugely blatant and obvious a way that he could start calling out, in what was for him an oddly reasonable tone of voice, "Say, partner, can you explain what I think I see here?"

Knowing the forged evidence is so damning that the jury will already have decided to hang, no matter the explanation : "I don't know how those stolen cattle got into my pen. The 17 dwarven sheep in the bedroom? No sense even talking about them."

As I say - given the animosities involved, this seems as credible as someone going so far off the deep end as to actually forge 17 dwarven hammers while cheating. (If you're capable of cheating so massively on gems - _WHY_ do you need all the hammers?)

Another fishy thing, from another game : How does an artifact (the Holy Grail) simply disappear from the magic item stash, with a message saying "Suddenly the Chalice was not found in the laboratory anymore".

No need to go all conspiracy minded. The simpler explanation is that Norfleet either hacked the files or used some sort of glitch he discovered, which would be tantamount to cheating. Add to the submitted files that Norfleet has, on more than one occasion I believe, triggered the cheat protections in the game, and also to my knowledge he is one of the very few if not the only forum acitve player that has done this in MP. While it is not irrefutably certain that he did cheat I think it is by far the most likely and obvious explanation.

The chalice dissappeared because the knights of the chalice came and quested for it.

[johan osterman]

I also want to point out that if the part of Kristoffers mail that Cainhill quoted is all that Stormbinder posted, the mail has recieved some editing before being quoted. I was reading over Kristoffers shoulder when he wrote it and the original tone of the letter was not intended to be congratulatory but to say 'you were right, it is there for everyone to see, be satisfied with that and move on' in response to Stormbinder feeling that Norfleet got the Last word when the thread was locked, I think the parts of the mail posted skewes the tone of it somewhat.

[archaeolept]

^^ heh lol. that's not completely surprising either

[Gandalf Parker]

^^ heh lol. that's not completely surprising either

What can you expect? If someone tells me that my dog is loose then I will thank him. If he yells at the whole neighborhood, calling names, threatens with a police call, and generally makes the entire block sick of it; then acknowledgment is all he will get if even that. Nobody wants to thank an ........ (various words tested and deleted) except maybe sarcastically even if after the fact he shouts "isnt anyone going to thank me?".

[archaeolept]

??? I was referring to Johan's post. I don't understand what your reply to my post concerns.

[Cainehill]

Gandalf:

What can you expect? If someone tells me that my dog is loose then I will thank him. If he yells at the whole neighborhood, calling names, threatens with a police call, and generally makes the entire block sick of it; then acknowledgment is all he will get if even that. Nobody wants to thank an ........ (various words tested and deleted) except maybe sarcastically even if after the fact he shouts "isnt anyone going to thank me?".

I'm pretty sure that archeolept was referring to Stormbinder's selective editing of the message as not being a surprise at all, as he consistently interprets (and sometimes distorts) things to fit his own self-chosen messianic role.

Hmm - is there _any_ way to get the person's name to show up on the same line as the "Quote:"? Very wasteful of space as is, and also somewhat frustrating to not be able to see _whom_ was being quoted, which is the default.

[Kel]

If someone tells me that my dog is loose then I will thank him. If he yells at the whole neighborhood, calling names, threatens with a police call, and generally makes the entire block sick of it; then acknowledgment is all he will get if even that. Nobody wants to thank an ........ (various words tested and deleted) except maybe sarcastically even if after the fact he shouts "isnt anyone going to thank me?".

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. Personally, my first thought was "Hey, the boy who cried wolf all night finally found one".

Cheating is unforgivable, cheaters should be Banned on first offense and the evidence that *Kristoffer* posted is sufficient to convince me, in the absence of any contradiction, that Norf cheated or abused a bug or something of a similar and illicit nature.

That said, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Storm would do something equally as illicit to get rid of someone he didn't like and most people who have been around a while might at least understand why I might say that. I mean, they were going to have some inane deathmatch which, if Norf lost, he would have to stop playing Dom2 here entirely, for god's sake !

However, *that* said, the only impartial evidence is pointing at Norf so I can accept that. As someone said, Occam's Razor and all. It doesn't change that, to me, Storm's contribution to the community was entirely an inadvertant by-product of his otherwise antagonistic personality.

- Kel